RM. RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

CIVIL APPEAL No. 710/1967Supreme Court[1971] 1 S.C.R. 46530 April 1970Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER B3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the assessment made on the non-resident partner, including his share of the firm's foreign income, was valid. The Court reasoned that while Section 4(1)(c) generally excludes income derived outside taxable territories by a non-resident, this provision is "subject to the provisions of this Act." Specifically, Section 23(5)(a) requires that a partner's share of a firm's profits, even if earned outside the taxable territories, must be included in the partner's total income for assessment purposes. The Court affirmed the Privy Council's decision in Seth Badri Das Daga & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central and United Provinces, which held that a non-resident partner of a resident firm cannot exclude their proportionate share of the firm's profits earned outside taxable territories under Section 4(1)(c). The High Court's decision in Gnanam & Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, which followed this principle, was also approved. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appellant, a non-resident individual, was a partner in a registered resident firm that conducted a money-lending business in India and Malaya. For the assessment year 1956-57, the firm's entire income accrued outside India. Under Section 23(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the assessee's share of this foreign income was included in his total income for tax purposes. The assessee argued that this inclusion was invalid under Section 4(1)(c) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer set off the assessee's business loss in Madras against this foreign income and assessed him at the maximum rate. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the assessment. The case reached the Supreme Court after the Madras High Court ruled against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment made on the assessee, a non-resident, by including his share of foreign income from a resident firm is valid in law, in light of Section 4(1)(c) and Section 23(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that under Section 4(1)(c), income derived outside the taxable territories by a non-resident should not be included in his taxable income. They contended that the concept of total income under Section 23(5)(a) should be carried forward to the second proviso, meaning the foreign income should be excluded as it arose wholly outside the taxable territories. Revenue's contention: The revenue relied on the principle that Section 4 is subject to the provisions of the Act, specifically Section 23(5)(a), which mandates the inclusion of a partner's share of the firm's income in their total income for assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

4(1)(c), 23(5)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G RM. RAMANA TIIAN CHETIIAR ETC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS April 30, 1970 [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 465 Jncome-ta:c Act (1922) ss. 4(1) (c) and 23(5)(a) second proviso-- Share of income derived outside taxable territories by firm included in income of non-resident partner-If can be excluded under s. 4(l)(c).

The appellant was a non~resident individual.

He was a partner of a registered resident firm which carried on money-lending business in India and Malaya. The entire income of the firm for the assessment year 1956- 57 accrued outside India.

Since before the Finance Act, 1956, under s. 23(5)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the firm did not itsel'f pay the tax on its income, but each partner's share in the firm's profits was added to his other income and the tax was payable by each partner on the basis of his total income, the assessee's share of the foreign income of the firm was included in his total income. The assessee claimed that it could not be so included under s. 4(1) ( c). HELD: Under sc 4(1) (c) when a person was not resident in the taxable territory income derived by him outside the tjlxable terr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →